Forecasting systematic risk by Least Angel Regression, AdaBoost and Kernel Ridge Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In according to importance of risk in financial decision and investment is one of issue that helps to investors is existing tools and appropriate models in order to predict systematic risk. Aim of this research was forecasting systematic risk of companies admitted at Tehran stock Exchange by Least Angel Regression (LARS), AdaBoost and Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR) and comparing ability of the algorithms in order to find the best methods of the test. In this study the financial data of (1159 observations) during 2005-2014. We used MATLAB software vision (R2013b). Results indicated that Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR) with 9.65% error (90.35% confidence) in comparison with Least Angel Regression (LARS) with 12.15% error (87.85% confidence) and AdaBoost with 28.91% error (71.09 confidence) has more ability for forecasting systematic risk. Moreover, ability of forecasting systematic risk in Least Angel Regression (LARS) is more than AdaBoost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".